ON  THE  PREPARATION  OF  BOTANICAL 
TEACHERS 


By  PROFESSOR  C.  E.  BESSEY 


[ Reprinted  from  Science,  N.  S. , Vol.  XXXIII. , No.  852,  Pages 
633-639 , April  28,  1911.'] 


■ i 


/ 

r 


ay 

&- 

<o 


[Reprinted  from  Science,  N.  S.,  Vol.  XXXIII. , No. 
852,  Pages  633-639,  April  28,  1911.  [ 


ON  THE  PREPARATION  OF  BOTANICAL 
TEACHERS 

Some  months  ago  a suggestion  was  made 
that  at  this  dinner  we  should  ask  ourselves 
the  question : Why  is  it  that  with  the  enor- 
mous classes  we  are  having  in  botany  there 
is  a marked  dearth  of  properly  trained 
men  who  can  serve  as  instructors  in  col- 
leges and  universities? 

In  order  to  be  sure  that  I was  right  in 
regard  to  such  a dearth  I wrote  to  some- 
thing like  a dozen  of  the  professors  of 
botany  in  prominent  institutions  in  the 
country,  making  the  inquiry  whether  they 
had  noticed  the  same  thing,  and  uniformly 
the  answer  was  that  there  seems  to  be  a 
shortage  in  the  supply  of  material  for 
instructors  (in  the  college  sense)  and 
young  men  for  other  minor  positions. 

I think  there  is  no  lack  of  men  who  are 
ready  to  be  professors  of  botany.  I am 
very  certain  that  there  is  no  trouble  here, 
but  when  a professor  who  knows  what  he 
wants  asks  for  a man  who  can  take  up  this 
work  or  that  work  as  an  instructor,  the 
situation  is  quite  different. 

What  becomes  of  the  great  number  of 
students  who  are  in  our  classes?  The  pro- 


/ 

r 


ay 

th 


36085 


2 


fessor  of  botany  in  the  University  of  Min- 
nesota tells  me  that  he  has  over  500  stu- 
dents in  his  beginning  classes.  In  Ne- 
braska we  have  about  350,  and  elsewhere  I 
find  essentially  the  same  thing.  Enormous 
classes  are  pursuing  general  botany,  and 
yet  so  few  are  going  on  and  qualifying  for 
even  the  minor  teaching  positions. 

In  talking  this  matter  over  recently  with 
a clergyman,  who  is  also  a botanist,  he 
said,  “The  truth  is  there  is  less  real  schol- 
arship among  students  to-day  than  there 
used  to  be,”  and  I think  there  is  a grain 
of  truth  in  his  remark. 

I stopped  our  professor  of  Greek  the 
the  other  day  and  asked  him  what  he 
thought  of  our  botanical  problem.  He 
said,  “It  is  just  because  the  students  have 
got  into  the  way  of  taking  nothing  but 
first-year  work.  They  take  first-year 
Greek,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it,  first-year 
college  Latin,  first-year  geology,  first-year 
philosophy,  first-year  physics,  first-year  as- 
tronomy, and  first  year  American  history, 
and  so  on.  ’ ’ There  is  a good  deal  of  truth 
here  too. 

Here  then  is  something  to  be  thought  of. 
Students  in  the  universities  are  taking  be- 
ginning work  only,  and  botany  suffers  with 
all  other  subjects.  As  educators  we  should 
give  serious  consideration  to  this  matter. 
It  is  not  right  that  we  should  permit  pupils 
to  be  taking  these  little  educational  bites 
of  all  kinds,  and  in  any  sequence;  on  the 
contrary  they  should  be  required  to  sit 
down  to  a good  square  educational  meal 
taken  in  proper  order. 

It  makes  one  sick  at  heart  to  witness 
what  is  actually  going  on  in  the  universi- 
ties under  our  very  eyes.  We  spread  out 


3 


before  the  students  the  courses  we  have  to 
offer,  and  in  tempting  phrase  try  to  induce 
as  many  as  possible  to  enter  our  classes. 
I am  reminded  of  the  proprietors  of  bazars 
who  have  trinkets  for  sale,  and  try  to  in- 
duce every  passer-by  to  purchase,  by  loud 
insistence  upon  the  advantages  resulting 
from  such  a transaction.  And  the  bewil- 
dered student  is  left  without  a guiding 
suggestion  in  the  bulky  catalogue.  Oh,  the 
folly  and  the  cupidity  and  the  cowardice 
of  the  system  that  bids  the  student  make  a 
wise  choice,  but  gives  him  no  guide ! Had 
I the  power  I should  certainly  sweep  out 
of  existence  all  of  the  go-as-you-please  ar- 
rangements in  the  universities,  and  I 
should  substitute  for  them  a logical  and 
carefully  selected  sequence  of  studies. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  many  young  men 
turn  from  botany  into  various  related  sub- 
jects, as  agronomy,  horticulture,  forestry, 
etc.,  and  I have  no  complaint  to  make  if 
they  do;  but  these  subjects  do  draw  stu- 
dents away  from  scientific  botany,  and  so 
reduce  the  number  available  for  teachers. 

Nearly  every  one  of  the  professors  to 
whom  I sent  inquiries  referred  to  the  low 
remuneration  that  comes  to  the  young  man 
who  has  fitted  himself  to  be  an  instructor 
in  botany  in  college  or  university.  And  no 
doubt  this  is  a potent  factor,  and  it  is  likely 
to  turn  away  many  of  the  best  men  from 
the  teachers’  ranks.  The  fact  is  that  a 
bright  young  man  looking  to  his  life-work 
will  be  turned  more  or  less  this  way  or 
that  way,  as  he  sees  that  the  world  is  ready 
to  pay  him  for  it.  Now  I dislike  to  have 
to  say  this;  we  like  to  think  that  the  best 
men  will  go  forward  if  they  have  to  go 
with  only  a crust  a day,  and  all  that. 


4 


There  is  very  little  truth  in  it,  however. 
We  ourselves  go  where  we  find  employ- 
ment and  adequate  remuneration.  And  so 
young  men  are  lured  away  from  botany 
with  its  low  remuneration,  leaving  us  too 
frequently  only  the  poorer  men. 

Now  we  do  not  like  to  acknowledge  this 
condition  of  things.  We  like  to  think  that 
science  is  a sacred  calling,  something  apart 
from  business,  and  we  do  not  like  to  ac- 
knowledge that  a man  who  has  the  scien- 
tific spirit  in  him  can  possibly  be  turned 
aside  by  any  thing  like  a salary.  But 
botany  is  a business,  and  it  is  not  sacred 
any  more  than  selling  shoes  or  editing  a 
newspaper  is  sacred.  And  as  most  men 
can  succeed  in  more  than  one  of  several 
pursuits,  so  most  men  can  succeed  in  bot- 
any if  they  take  hold  of  it  seriously.  Here 
again  we  do  not  like  to  acknowledge  the 
truth  of  this  statement;  we  think  that  we 
are  made  of  different  kind  of  stuff.  But  I 
do  not  believe  it  for  a moment.  I have  no 
doubt  that  some  of  us  here  might  have  been 
millionaires  if  we  had  gone  into  business. 
What  I want  to  insist  upon  is  this : that  we 
look  at  this  matter  squarely,  and  not  try  to 
make  out  that  we  are  a different  kind  of 
people,  and  made  out  of  different  material. 
We  are  not,  and  our  business  isn’t  any  dif- 
ferent; it  isn’t  any  more  sacred.  We  must 
be  candid  in  this  matter  and  admit  that  our 
profession  hasn’t  anything  sacred  in  it; 
there  is  no  sacred  fire  that  must  touch 
every  man  before  he  can  be  a botanist. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  sentiment.  As  I 
said  before,  botany  is  comparable  to  the 
selling  of  shoes,  or  the  running  of  a news- 
paper. Botany  is  not  extraordinarily  dif- 
ficult, and  it  does  not  require  geniuses; 


5 


only  just  good  ability  and  perseverance; 
that’s  all.  So  men  who  might  have  been 
botanists  will  continue  to  choose  other  vo- 
cations, and  some  others  will  choose  to  be- 
come botanists,  and  some  of  either  will  fail, 
and  some  will  succeed,  just  as  is  always  the 
case.  Some  men  who  might  have  become 
brilliant  botanists  will  become  brilliant 
business  men  instead.  It  has  been  said 
that  “botanists  are  born  and  not  made.” 
Maybe  they  are,  but  if  so,  they  are  born 
with  a multiplicity  of  other  possibilities 
also. 

Brethren,  let  us  remember  that  we  are 
quite  like  other  men,  and  that  with  us  the 
factor  of  remuneration  cuts  as  great  a fig- 
ure as  it  does  elsewhere  in  society,  in  the 
selection  of  a vocation. 

Many  of  those  to  whom  I wrote  expressed 
doubts  as  to  the  wisdom  and  effectiveness 
of  some  of  our  teaching,  and  out  of  these 
doubts  that  have  been  passed  along  to  me 
I obtain  these  suggestions: 

There  is  some  faulty  elementary  instruc- 
tion; probably  I should  have  said  much 
faulty  instruction.  Again,  we  do  not  be- 
gin early  enough  in  bending  the  human 
twig  in  the  right  direction  to  make  a good 
botanist.  There  is  a good  deal  of  improper 
presentation.  We  too  often  try  to  offer 
“attractive”  courses  for  the  sake  of  draw- 
ing students  into  our  work.  And  this  is 
necessarily  fatal  to  a scientific  presentation. 
Some  of  my  correspondents  suggest  that 
there  are  such  persons  as  incompetent  as- 
sistants who  supervise  our  laboratories,  and 
by  their  incompetence  tend  to  drive  away 
some  men.  Further,  it  has  been  suggested 
that  probably  there  is  nowadays  too  great 
a neglect  of  field  work.  It  used  to  be  that 


6 


in  vacation  time  the  young  botanist  had 
something  to  think  about,  and  something  to 
do.  He  could  go  out  in  the  woods  on  long 
botanical  trips.  He  can  not  do  this  to-day 
if  he  is  a mere  laboratory  man.  He  can  not 
conveniently  carry  his  microscope  along 
with  him.  A vasculum  is  a great  deal 
easier  to  carry  than  is  a microscope,  and 
far  easier  to  handle.  I think  my  corre- 
spondent was  right : we  have  lost  something 
of  our  hold  on  young  men  because  we  have 
nothing  to  substitute  for  the  old-time  field 
botany.  You  can  not  do  laboratory  work 
in  vacation.  Of  course  you  can  go  to  sum- 
mer school,  and  sit  down  by  the  side  of  a 
lake  and  study  some  of  the  algae  found 
there,  but  even  that  doesn ’t  compare  favor- 
ably with  the  old-time  tramping  for  miles 
and  miles  through  the  woods  and  swamps, 
with  a vasculum  slung  over  your  shoulder. 

Some  of  my  correspondents  suggested 
that  there  is  too  much  narrow  training  now- 
adays. I think  this  probably  comes  rather 
close  to  some  of  us.  We  get  hold  of  a 
bright  young  fellow  after  he  has  had  a half 
year’s  work,  or  little  more,  and  put  him 
into  something  that  narrows  him  to  a single 
line  of  work.  He  makes  a good  specialist, 
but  he  is  too  narrow  for  a botanist.  He  is 
far  too  narrow  a man  to  be  put  in  charge 
of  classes  in  general  botany. 

Again,  I think  we  set  our  requirements 
too  high  for  the  young  teacher.  We  de- 
mand much  more  than  is  really  necessary. 
We  older  men  forget  how  very  little  we 
knew  when  we  began  teaching.  We  act  as 
though  we  felt  that  men  must  be  stuffed 
with  every  detail  of  technical  knowledge 
before  they  are  ready  to  be  sent  out  as 
teachers.  We  want  these  men  to  be  pre- 


7 


pared  all  around,  and  well  prepared,  too. 
This  is  all  right  enough  when  you  are 
thinking  of  specialists  to  fill  positions  call- 
ing for  a particular  preparation.  But 
when  the  inquiry  is  made  for  a young  man 
to  be  an  instructor  we  should  go  back  to 
our  own  experience.  We  did  not  know 
much,  but  we  got  on  somehow,  and  our 
classes  seemed  to  learn  from  us.  Yet  to- 
day we  act  as  though  we  felt  that  we  must 
send  out  young  teachers  who  are  perfect 
machines  for  any  kind  of  botanical  work. 
We  act  as  though  we  were  not  sending  out 
men  with  initiative  and  with  ability. 

Let  me  illustrate  my  meaning  by  an  ex- 
ample. A few  years  ago  the  government 
sent  to  Nebraska  for  a young  fellow  who 
was  not  especially  well  prepared  in  botany 
and  took  him  to  Washington,  and  after  a 
few  days  shipped  him  down  to  Alabama, 
and  put  him  in  charge  of  a group  of  men. 
They  were  studying  pecan  tree  diseases. 
This  man  from  northern  Nebraska,  who 
had  never  seen  a pecan  tree,  found  himself 
in  charge  of  a squad  of  men  engaged  in 
budding  pecans.  He  knew  nothing  about 
budding  pecans.  But  he  had  initiative 
enough  to  master  the  situation,  and  after  a 
night’s  study  and  practise  he  went  ahead 
as  though  he  had  been  budding  pecans  all 
his  life,  and  succeeded!  I did  not  train 
that  man  in  pecan  budding ; in  fact  I could 
not  have  recommended  him  as  a budder  of 
pecans.  Yet  he  “made  good,”  not  because 
he  had  been  stuffed  by  the  right  kind  of 
knowledge,  but  because  with  his  founda- 
tion of  knowledge  he  had  energy  and 
ability. 

Now  let  us  ask  whether  we  are  not  set- 
ting up  a wrong  standard?  We  are  think- 


8 


ing  of  how  full  a man  is  of  the  botany  we 
have  put  into  him.  Should  not  our  atti- 
tude be  this:  “this  man  has  made  a good 
beginning,  he  has  the  right  kind  of  ma- 
terial in  him,  take  him  and  let  him  grow 
up  with  his  work.” 

Now  there  is  not  one  of  you  here  who 
has  not  learned  ten  times  more  of  botany 
out  of  college  than  he  learned  in  college. 
You  had  the  qualities  in  you  to  make  you 
successful,  and  had  a fair  beginning  in  the 
science.  I was  quite  interested  in  looking 
over  the  summaries  in  the  second  edition  of 
the  “American  Men  of  Science”  to  find 
that  the  botanists  are  requiring  young  men 
to  work  longer  for  their  bachelor’s  and 
doctor ’s  degrees  than  are  the  chemists, 
physicists,  zoologists,  mathematicians  or 
geologists.  I do  not  believe  botany  is  pro- 
portionally that  much  harder.  We  are 
putting  too  high  a value  on  what  we  are 
putting  into  our  students,  and  neglecting 
the  man  himself.  We  are  in  danger  of 
having  men  grow  “stale,”  as  the  athletes 
say.  Probably  we  keep  our  men  with  us 
too  long.  We  should  send  them  out  while 
they  are  still  fresh  and  vigorous. 

I think  we  should  map  out  very  defi- 
nitely a series  of  successive  semesters  of 
work  that  should  constitute  fair  prepara- 
tion for  the  average  young  man  who  wishes 
to  become  a botanist.  Such  a botanist 
should  be  ready  to  begin  teaching,  or  even 
investigating,  not  as  an  expert,  but  as  a 
beginner.  And  every  one  must  necessarily 
be  a beginner  in  his  work  at  one  time  in 
his  life.  Let  us  think  of  these  young  men 
that  we  are  suggesting  for  positions  as  be- 
ginners merely ; and  when  you  send  one  to 
me  I shall  take  him  as  a beginner,  not  as 


9 


a finished  botanist.  Yet  very  commonly 
we  say  to  our  students  that  they  can  not 
begin  either  investigating  or  teaching  until 
they  have  made  a special  study  in  partic- 
ular fields.  We  try  to  impress  them  with 
the  great  importance  of  graduate  work,  and 
the  littleness  of  their  present  knowledge, 
and  we  impress  upon  them  also  our  con- 
viction of  their  general  inability. 

We  need  broad  general  courses  with  defi- 
nite beginnings  and  endings,  and  including 
something  of  all  the  phases  of  the  science, 
well  wrought  together  into  one  science,  and 
not  courses  consisting  of  a collection  of 
disjointed  and  disconnected  phases  of  the 
subject.  I think  here  is  one  of  our  mis- 
takes. As  one  of  my  correspondents  wrote 
very  emphatically,  “this  splitting  up  of 
the  science  so  that  the  student  thinks  of  it 
as  morphology,  so  many  hours ; physiology, 
so  many  hours ; pathology,  so  many  hours ; 
and  mycology,  and  algology,  and  bryology, 
and  taxonomy,  etc.,  has  done  much  to  dis- 
courage young  men.” 

No  doubt  also  we  can  help  to  make  more 
botanists  by  encouraging  an  esprit  de  corps 
among  our  students,  whether  they  are  un- 
dergraduate or  graduate  students.  All  are 
botanists;  even  the  newest  recruit  belongs 
to  the  botanical  army.  Let  us  not  with- 
hold honor  from  these  new  additions  to  our 
force.  And  yet  I have  seen  in  many  places 
a tendency  to  persistently  belittle  the 
knowledge  of  the  student  in  his  first  and 
second  years  on  the  theory,  I suppose,  that 
it  is  good  for  a young  fellow  to  be  “taken 
down,  ’ ’ and  made  to  feel  that  in  this  stage 
he  is  little  better  than  a fool.  I do  not 
think  this  is  right. 

Another  thing  that  we  can  do  is  to  study 


10 


our  men,  and  select  the  more  promising. 
And  we  must  not  be  too  particular,  either, 
in  our  choice.  I have  seen  some  rather 
unpromising  men  turn  out  to  be  very  suc- 
cessful botanists.  We  must  not  turn  men 
away  simply  because  at  first  they  do  not 
seem  to  be  promising.  Some  slow  men 
finally  become  good  botanists  and  success- 
ful teachers.  On  the  other  hand,  I have 
known  some  brilliant  men  who  in  the  end 
have  done  very  little  with  all  their  bril- 
liancy. I feel  sure  that  as  teachers  we 
should  frankly  tell  our  students  what  we 
think  they  are  able  to  do.  Let  us  stop 
looking  for  Torreys,  Grays,  Farlows, 
Barneses,  Coulters,  etc.  That,  however,  is 
what  we  are  doing.  We  are  putting  up  a 
standard  that  is  only  reached  once  in  a 
long  while.  Let  us  realize  that  the  young 
fellows  in  our  classes  are  very  much  as  we 
were — just  mediocre  men.  Most  of  us  are 
that,  but  we  got  on  somehow,  and  have 
been  measurably  successful.  And  so  will 
they.  Give  them  a chance. 

Then  I fear  that  we  have  not  treated 
botany  as  a profession,  but  merely  as  a 
subject  of  study.  Of  course  it  is  to  be 
studied,  and  of  course,  also,  it  is  to  be 
taught.  But  it  is  also  a profession,  and 
we  should  weave  into  our  instruction  much 
of  the  ethics  of  the  science,  whether  it  is  to 
take  the  form  of  teaching  or  investigation. 
The  young  botanist  should  be  made  to  feel 
that  he  is  going  to  use  his  botanical  knowl- 
edge, and  that  he  can  do  so  with  entire 
propriety.  Let  us  stop  saying  to  the  young 
man:  “You  do  not  know  enough  yet  to  be- 
gin ’ ’ — but  let  him  begin ! 

Now,  before  I come  to  my  closing  dis- 
cussion I want  to  make  a slight  digression 


11 


in  order  to  speak  of  college  courses  in  gen- 
eral, and  especially  the  go-as-you-please 
method  to  be  found  in  most  of  our  institu- 
tions. I fully  believe  in  having  work  pre- 
scribed as  to  kind  and  place  in  the  college 
curriculum.  I believe  in  prescribing  the 
necessary  language  work  early  in  the 
course.  I believe  also  in  prescribing  the 
other  science  work.  The  old-fashioned 
classical  courses,  with  some  modifications 
admitting  science,  appear  to  me  to  be  about 
the  best  foundation.  You  ask  me  why  so? 
For  the  reason  that  they  began  at  some 
place  and  ended  at  some  place.  There  was 
consistency  and  continuity,  with  resultant 
training.  The  so-called  “free  elective” 
plan  is  to  me  the  worst  of  all  plans.  The 
student  is  dazed  by  the  many  things  that 
he  can  do;  and  he  does  not  know  what  to 
do.  In  most  institutions,  he  is  supposed 
to  have  an  adviser,  but,  as  Abraham  Flex- 
ner  shrewdly  says,  “the  advice  is  equiva- 
lent to  perfunctory  consent  to  propositions 
which  the  student  himself  submits.”  So 
the  student  generally  ends  by  doing  a lot 
of  the  easier  things  in  a hodge-podge,  aim- 
less manner. 

Now  let  me  make  a few  suggestions  with 
regard  to  the  courses  in  botany.  I fear 
that  I may  shock  some  of  you  by  some 
things  I am  going  to  say. 

In  the  University  of  Nebraska  we  are 
working  on  a three-year  schedule  (in  a 
four-year  college  course)  for  undergraduate 
work  in  botany,  intended  to  fit  men  for 
filling  instructorships  in  botany.  I do  not 
believe  in  the  4 ‘ quick-meal  ’ ’ process  in  edu- 
cation, but  as  I look  over  what  I have  been 
doing  the  last  forty  or  more  years,  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  can  concentrate  our  work 


12 


to  such  an  extent  that  a man  who  brings 
proper  preparation  otherwise  to  the  work 
ought  to  be  able,  in  three  years,  if  properly 
guided,  to  complete  the  course.  We  are 
making  this  schedule  aggregate  from 
twenty  to  twenty-five  hours  only — not  quite 
the  equivalent  of  a single  study  taken  three 
years.  In  this  time  we  think  it  is  possible 
to  take  a bright  young  man  and  fit  him 
well  to  begin  work.  Of  course  he  will  not 
be  the  equal  of  'our  older  men.  Let  us, 
however,  give  up  the  idea  that  we  can  turn 
out  young  men  who  know  as  much  as  Dr. 
Coulter  or  Dr.  Farlow.  That  will  take 
years ; but  a man  can  have  a good  prepara- 
tion for  teaching  botany,  as  good  as  the 
young  engineer  gets — and  he  is  ready  for 
work  when  he  finishes  his  course..  So  we 
are  working  on  a three-year  schedule  and 
I think  we  are  going  to  accomplish  with  it 
what  has  hitherto  taken  a much  longer 
time. 

We  are  proceeding  with  the  following 
limitations.  First : Such  a three-year 
schedule  must  include  a general  survey  of 
the  plant  kingdom. 

Second:  This  three-year  course  must  in- 
clude the  essentials  of  cytology  and  his- 
tology. It  may  not  include  an  extensive 
knowledge  of  them,  but  their  technique  at 
least,  and  enough  so  that  a man  has  mas- 
tered a few,  at  least,  of  the  principles. 

Third : Such  a schedule  must  include  the 
essentials  of  plant  physiology. 

Fourth:  It  must  include  also  the  essen- 
tials of  taxonomy.  I will  not  attempt  to 
say  how  much  that  should  be,  and  yet  I 
am  certain  that  there  should  be  a eonsid- 
the  plants  that  a man  is  likely  to  come  in 
erable  knowledge  of  taxonomy  in  regard  to 


13 


contact  with.  I should  feel  embarrassed 
if  called  upon  to  teach  in  a part  of  the 
world  where  I did  not  know  what  the  plants 
around  me  were.  I would  not  like  to  em- 
ploy a man  in  my  department  who  would 
frankly  confess  that  he  could  not  tell  an 
ash  tree  from  a maple. 

These  are  some  of  the  things  that  should 
be  known.  There  are  many  things  I have 
not  included,  but  I think  that  what  I have 
put  into  my  schedule  will  fairly  prepare  a 
young  man  for  beginning  to  teach.  He  can 
not  take  my  classes,  perhaps,  nor  Dr.  Coul- 
ter’s classes,  but  he  can  begin  where  we 
began  in  teaching,  and  work  up! 

Now  this  amount  of  botanical  knowledge, 
as  I have  mapped  it  out,  is  very  much  more 
than  many  of  us  had  when  we  began.  It 
should  fit  a man  for  beginning  to  give  in- 
struction in  the  smaller  colleges  or  in  the 
minor  positions  in  the  universities.  It 
should  fit  him  to  lead  intelligently  the  stu- 
dents that  come  to  him  in  our  normal 
schools.  I take  it  that  it  is  in  this  direc- 
tion that  we  must  move  if  we  are  to  be 
able  to  supply  from  our  schools  and  our 
universities  the  men  who  are  to  follow  us. 

You  will  notice  that  in  all  this  I have 
said — “men.”  I have  said  so  because  I 
have  found  that  when  the  demand  comes, 
it  is  mostly  for  men.  I do  not  know  why 
this  is  so.  We  say  very  pretty  things  about 
our  women  students,  and  give  them  good 
high  standings,  and  say  complimentary 
things  about  them  as  students ; and  yet 
when  you  yourselves  look  around  for  some 
one  to  be  an  instructor,  and  we  write  and 
say — “there  is  a young  woman  here  who 
will  make  a good  instructor” — you  say: 
“Our  present  circumstances  are  such  that 


14 


we  can  not  employ  a woman.”  Here  is 
one  thing  that  we  ought  to  change.  The 
supply  of  competent  women  is  much  larger 
than  of  competent  men,  and  I can  assure 
you  from  experience  in  my  own  depart- 
ment that  they  make  admirable  instructors. 

I have  gone  over  this  problem  of  the 
making  of  botanical  teachers  in  this  rapid 
way  in  order  to  stir  up  thought  along  many 
lines.  For  I hold  that  it  is  a serious  prob- 
lem ; and  that  we  as  teachers  of  botany  owe 
it  to  the  future  that  we  should  prepare  in 
a proper  way  for  the  succession  of  teachers 
that  must  follow  us. 

Charles  E.  Bessey 
University  of  Nebraska 


3 0112  072856120 


